Thanks for that link EA. Jackson's letter to the fans was really well written! It's just too bad that New Line has told him they "no longer require his services". I think that's a huge mistake. What other director could do the same job? Fans are not going to like it if The Hobbit has too much of a different feel to LOTR.

And if, as Sic's mom pointed out, McCelland and Serkis aren't going to do the movie without Jackson, then forget it! You can't have a different Gollum and you just can't have a different Gandalf!

I wonder though, if it isn't better that the project be a no-go. As Eurytus explained (last year, this is an old thread!) likely some elements of the story would have to be changed to make the movie more appealing for a movie audience, and especially to make the movie meld more with LOTR for the millions of fans of those movies. The Hobbit is such a magical book for me...I don't know, I just fear that a movie would destroy the magic. LOTR, imo, was more suited to movie-dom--and even then, the movie still can't match the magic of the book, for me.

Well anyway I guess there's no use speculating when the project hasn't even been started yet, and may never be. We'll just have to wait and see what happens!

Okay, Mods, not sure where this should go--Tolkien forum, perhaps, but it seems the broader fantasy audience would be better.

But I am vexed, flummoxed, distracted, and dumbfounded by the news that New Line has basically told Peter Jackson and his team, "No thanks. We don't need you for The Hobbit Movie. We'd rather keep a little bit more money."

Actually, pretty glad at this because -- although Jackson would do a great job with the visuals -- I'd be worried that he'd screw around with the essential nature of the characters as he did with LOTR, i.e., turn Aragorn into a simpering, angst-ridden weakling.

Actually, pretty glad at this because -- although Jackson would do a great job with the visuals -- I'd be worried that he'd screw around with the essential nature of the characters as he did with LOTR, i.e., turn Aragorn into a simpering, angst-ridden weakling.

Click to expand...

Have to differ with you there, Brian. I agree there were moments where I thought Aragorn was portrayed incorrectly--I think that was more PJ latching onto one element of Aragorn (his reluctance to be King) and developing it at the expense of others.

There are Tolkien purists who could find fault with any screen adaptation that could ever be made. I am a Tolkien purist, but not to that degree. In essence what Jackson did was nothing short of miraculous. To capture so much of the heart of LotR, the settings, the relationships---just an amazing feat to me.

I think to have anyone else do The Hobbit would create such a HUGE disconnect between that and LotR. Directors have such different styles and visions. Imagine what some other directors would do: Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Quentin Tarantino, etc. It would be so very different (maybe not bad in and of itself) that a mental block would exist in the vision of Tolkien's work.

And on the note of creative liberty: I for one would like to see some creative development of the "gray areas" of The Hobbit. I mean, actually seeing the White Council make war on the Necromance in Mirkwood---that would rock!

As a lawyer, I think it's important to remember that in litigation, particularly disputes about contracts, rights, fees, etc., there is always more than one side to the story. Further, litigants tend to use whatever means available of painting their adversaries as the "bad guys"--including going to the public with e-mails to fan sites.

What's more, nobody has a monopoly on greed--after all, Jackson's lawsuit demands a very large amount of money on top of the earnings he's already made.

I don't know which side, if any, is "right." It's quite possible that what's really happening is that both sides are positioning themselves for further negotiation and that Jackson will ultimately find himself reinstated, as it were, and that his lawsuit will be settled giving him a payoff.

Oh there's a lot more examples I could give, but yeah, I think we'll just have to disagree. Plus, there's less room for jiggering about with character in the Hobbit. And Jackson would do a great job with bringing Smaug to life . . .

(OT: the recent pictures of PJ look great. He's lost a lot of weight. Maybe he could play Thorin?)

Nope, this needs to go to the Tolkein forum or the Film forum. I'll put it in Tolkein for now and you can see how it goes.

For the record, I think Jackson needs to move on, and since he's turning himself into a major film studio at this point, including numerous fantasy projects, I don't know when he'd have the time to do the film anyway. Let somebody else take a shot, and since the Hobbit is more of a kid's book, maybe make it a little more kid-friendly. Though the purists would probably get out the torches on that. But Jackson did not do well with King Kong -- no director is bullet-proof, and most of the time, they do better if they try out something new, rather than rehash the same old franchise.

And when New Line and Jackson patch things up, as they will -- they always do -- Jackson can be involved as a producer and loan out his Hobbit village. It might mean we get a Hobbit movie sooner this way.

In a way, I almost hope it turns out to be a colossal failure. I would love to see the studio mess up the good thing they had with LOTR. Hollywood execs just seem to be the most short sighted, narrow minded, disgusting greedy people. They don't care at all about the magic of these books, just the magic of big bucks.

I'd love to see a fan-boycott if they don't get PJ, but I know it won't happen. If the movie looks at all decent, I'm sure every Tolkien freak (including myself) will be lined up on opening night.

Still, I think I will cry and cry and sob and cry some more, if they don't have Ian McKellen as Gandalf, and Andy Serkis as Gollum. That will be a tragic, tragic mistake in my opinion, and the movies will never measure up unless they're on-board.

Nope, this needs to go to the Tolkein forum or the Film forum. I'll put it in Tolkein for now and you can see how it goes.

For the record, I think Jackson needs to move on, and since he's turning himself into a major film studio at this point, including numerous fantasy projects, I don't know when he'd have the time to do the film anyway. Let somebody else take a shot, and since the Hobbit is more of a kid's book, maybe make it a little more kid-friendly. Though the purists would probably get out the torches on that. But Jackson did not do well with King Kong -- no director is bullet-proof, and most of the time, they do better if they try out something new, rather than rehash the same old franchise.

And when New Line and Jackson patch things up, as they will -- they always do -- Jackson can be involved as a producer and loan out his Hobbit village. It might mean we get a Hobbit movie sooner this way.

Click to expand...

Thats opinionated also. Personally I feel Jackson is the best director in the genre, and his King Kong was marvelous. The actual directing and things isn't what makes the movies take long either, the filming is actually done fairly quickly. It is the sound, sets, costumes, etc. That really drag the time it takes to flim/direct.

Of course, this is all too soon anyway. I don't even think there is a screenplay written yet.

This to many of us cinema fans is a giant upset, simply because Jackson was anamazing director, and created three amazing movies. The new Hobbit movie has the potential for greatness, but also can be like the original dune movie, a complete and total flop.

When I heard Jackson was doing LOTR I couldn't believe it! The Jackass who did Bad Taste! Come on, it will suck! And look what he delivered.

It will only fail if the studio does not find someone who loves the source material, as Jackson did/does for LOTR.

The studio took a huge risk in Jackson (as did the Tolkien estate) and there are plenty of good film makers out there.

I vote for Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth), Sturla Gunnarsson (Beowulf & Grendel) or John McTiernan (13th Warrior)... even better would be the brilliant Josh Whedon!

It would be a shame if Sir Ian and Serkis turned down their roles but not the end of the world.

Before LOTR, who the hell knew who Jackson or WETA were? There must be directors and SFX units out there who deserve such a chance with the Hobbit and frankly, the thought of the Troll capture scene, a whole cast of Dwarves and Smaug... makes my entertainbuds (new word coined for this thread (C) ) drooooool.

I see what you're saying, juzzza, and yes I agree that any version of The Hobbit on the big screen will probably be totally amazing. I remember when the main question was whether there ever would be a movie. It looks like it's definitely going to happen now, which is a good thing.

However, you can't expect people to not be disappointed. I never even heard of Jackson when the original trilogy was announced, but now that we all know who he is, and have him to personally thank for making the entire thing possible, people want him to do the job. He's somehow connected to Tolkien's world now, he's familiar and reliable, and having a stranger suddenly take the helm feels wrong.

Anyways, here are some new tantalizing tidbits:

New Line owns the rights to production, and they're saying Jackson is dropped.

MGM, however, owns the rights to distribution. They were the ones who were very vocally keen on getting Jackson. Their spokesman just said that "the issue of Jackson directing The Hobbit film is far from closed".

And as for who the new director might be......? Apparently there are reports from a "reliable source" that Sam Raimi is being approached with the offer. I'd still much prefer Jackson, but this is actually rather good news to me. I love Raimi's Army of Darkness and Evil Dead movies, and I am a fairly big fan of the Spiderman films (although they're not quite dark enough, in my opinion). Hopefully Raimi could pull it off (though I worry a bit about his tendency for lots of humour and comic relief). Also, probably the biggest question, is wheter Raimi is a fan of Tolkien. I just thought of this right now... and I have no idea whether he's even read the books!

Yes, I can see that... I would prefer Jackson to be involved too, absolutely, it would take all concern about the adaptation out of the equation... he's a proven quantity. I just think we have to be open to being amazed (or at least, satisfied) by another film maker as we were with the LOTR movies when Jackson was unknown to most of us or, only linked with poor horror movies and The Frighteners, which I did enjoy. The jump from The Frighteners to bringing to life Middle Earth seemed impossible!

Raimi would be interesting, considering his work on the Xena and Hercules shows... at least he isn't new to genre per se. Whilst I wouldn't like to see this Tv-light style humour for the Hobbit, the book is quite funny and lighthearted... a totally different feel to LOTR. I would be equally disappointed if whoever ends up making it, tried to give it the feel of LOTR.

Alex Proyas would be interesting, I loved the feel of Dark City and The Crow.

You do make a good point: the leap for Jackson to move from low budget zombie flicks to LOTR was one of the most amazing things in film history, IMO. Almost totally unforseeable. I think that, in that light, we do owe any new director the benefit of the doubt.

Another tidbit: Apparently Saul Zaentz (the guy who owns the worldwide rights to any Tolkien films, and made the LOTR films possible) has said that apparently New Line's rights to the Hobbit expire next year; hence, their eagerness to press on and find a director. But Zaentz seems to think it will still be Jackson, and that Jackson is stalling for time, so that next year, when Zaentz regains the rights, Jackson can go to him instead of New Line, who screwed Jackson over.

I heard on the IMDb that they were making two separate movies...is that true?

Click to expand...

Apparently so. I'm not sure how I feel about that. If they are both good and faithful to Tolkien's work, then I'll be incedibly happy. But if they just try and squeeze one extra film out of it, purely for the money, who knows...

Apparently one film will be primarily based on the Hobbit, and the second prequel will draw on addition sources, dealing with the events leading up to the Lord of the Rings (whatever that means).

No, the second film won't be "The Silmarillion". In fact, there's no way The Silmarillion could be one film. They'd either have to focus on one of the stories/chapters from the book, or else make a whole trilogy of its own.